I would be like her here, if it weren’t for the fact that (1) I can’t use big words like that unless I have it memorized and (2) I got bad grades because I chose to and because I procrastinated too much, not because I was so much of a genius that I didn’t need to do it all. Even though I probably wouldn’t have remembered anything I didn’t already know anyway.

And according to Descartes, since one cannot be sure that the universe outside ones mind even exists, neither Sandra nor Larisa can be confident of the placement of the ball, or the existence of the ball, or the existence of Sandra or Larisa. As for all three of these putative entities being part of a collective entity called a “beach volleyball game”, that would be considered a wild leap of faith on the part of any observer. So if we follow this line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, it would seem that the outcome of the match is very much in doubt. >:=)>

However, I can’t help thinking that if, say, Hendrik Lorentz and Diogenes the Cynic were to turn up, they would soon be able to derail Larisa’s line of reasoning, and allow play to resume.

oh Larisa… wavefunction does not actualy collapse… take it as a fact that when you measure anything you have to use something, perhaps a photon, which also has another wave fuction. And at best you abserve a photon which carries some level of information about observed object. (it can not carry all information about it anyway). Therefore you are using one wavefunction (which you also need to detect more easily) to determine state of another.
Plus it even does not allow you to truly measure phase variance of the wave function. just some time average and aplitude.

Quantum theory is just that- a theory which is used to describe observed results and give reasonable predictions (plus with probabilistic option) it can describe even less reasonable outcomes.

But well… if you wait an infinite time I am sure the ball would tunnel inside the white rectangle on the ground…

Two girls in a bikini, and all the comments are about the words that she said. Only one person commented about it, and he/she immediately got downvoted.

Stop pretending that you’re not actually interested to see the characters in swimsuit and instead pretending that you actually care about those nonsensical quantum theory to disguise your actual interest.

Heh. In my experience, all sports are religions, at least to those involved. From the trumpeting, broad-church heights of the Superbowl, the World Cup and the World Series, to the blood-and-thunder of professional wrestling and boxing, MMA and roller derby, through the enclaves of orthodox tradition that are sumo, lawn bowls and fencing, down to the stoic faith of the small-town five-a-side team, dragging themselves from defeat to defeat. It has its saints, such as Babe Ruth and Pele, heretics, such as Shoeless Joe Jackson, and Samson-type figures such as George Best – unbeatable on the field, but brought down by their flaws off it. There have been schisms and breakaway sects, such as Australian rules football, and holy wars and crusades, as happened during the “Bodyline” Test cricket series. Most sports fans will admit that their devotion to the game (or games) ultimately goes beyond logic, and can easily take on a religious character.

Not that any of this helps Sandra …or does it?

– You will confess, Larisa, to one count of heresy – just one – by uttering false line calls! Confess!

Speaking for myself, I didn’t really pay much attention to the fact that they were wearing swimsuits in order to play beach volleyball, and the philosophical implications of Larisa’s argument were a lot more fun for me to address. Yes, now it’s been brought up, I suppose that it is a cute swimsuit, and Sandra and Larisa and Cloud and Yuna and Woo and Sid and Shadow are all cute as buttons, but there really isn’t much more I can think of to say about it.

So what was your point, exactly? That we should be giving more vocal appreciation to swimsuit -clad minors? That we’re a bunch pseudo-intellectuals, talking crap about crap? That you believed you had determined our true natures and motivations based on the comments so far (viewed in light of your personal knowledge of the human condition), and just decided to call us on it?

Well, she’s really just rules-lawyering… but when you put it that way, I can see that it would be advisable to leave Diogenes and Lorentz out of this and let Larisa argue the toss undisturbed, rather than risk goading her into further bending of universal laws. After all, she might snap something this time. >:=\>

@Hfar – multiple quantum universes can’t really be considered “metaphysics,” since it’s an extrapolation of a known scientific principle, carried over into “multiverses.” More physics than philosophy, it just still has the status of “theory” instead of “law.”

(I used to use quantum multiverse theory when playing chess. A lot. Granted, I more “play at” chess than “play” chess – I’m a tactical thinker, not a strategic one. I did better with speed chess, because it cut off the other guy’s ability to think. I’m used to thinking quickly.)

@Strife – there is only one “science” – what we call “sciences” are either facets of that (physics, chemistry, mathematics, electrics) or misnomers (political science being the worst. If it can’t be described mathematically, it ain’t science.) There are some “sciences” that occupy a grey are – psychology is one of those. It follows known rules (in general,) but we still don’t know what makes it tick – which is why it’s an “inexact science.” Once we can come up with sound mathematical models for how and why the brain works, we’ll finally have psychology knocked (at which point it will probably be renamed “psychometrics,” since it’s going to be more fully measurable.)

“Political science” not science? Some I’ve worked with would have called that heresy! My answer was simple – “Come up with a mathematical model governing sociopolitical behaviour.” They never could. Meanwhile, i can mathematically describe – with rigorous precision – everything that happens in your vehicle’s powertrain from when you turn the key to start the engine to when you turn it off. Everything predictable, everything quantifiable – except for the actions of the loose nut behind the wheel.

And quantum mechanics (and, by extension, quantum realities) make such wonderful fodder for debate – in some ways, even more fun than debating solipsism!

@ x
Not everyone cares that much about characters wearing swimsuits. It’s just another detail of the comic in my opinion, and your assumption that everyone would both be interested in it and that they’d comment on it is making some big and somewhat offensive assumptions about the fanbase as a whole.
It’s okay for you to comment on the swimsuits of the characters, but telling everyone else kind of ruins the point of commenting (that you say your opinions) and generally feels like an insult.

@ x:
Three things: That’s really not important to the comic, nobody was looking at that because we were interested in what Larisa’s speech and why she was saying it, and you’re a pedophile.

Well good looking a blonde girl who actualy uderstand concept of quantum mechanics… (or more likely what we consider it to be…) would certainly be hope for mankind.
I am doing masters degree in physical engeniering (mostly diffractive optics) and well we do not get that many… (and the only one good looking is impossible to be cornered alone even to invite her for cup of coffee… fortunately everyone else finds it equaly impossible)

As for pedophile… in 13 years human is physicaly adult (or to put it bluntly- any living beeing is biologicaly adult when it is technicaly capable of sucesfull procreation) there are only some social norms about it… mostly just because humans tend to need more “education” in their social skills. Wheather it would be achievable faster it open question.

As for pedophile… in 13 years human is physicaly adult (or to put it bluntly- any living beeing is biologicaly adult when it is technicaly capable of sucesfull procreation) there are only some social norms about it… mostly just because humans tend to need more “education” in their social skills. Wheather it would be achievable faster it open question.

“Pedophile’ is a routinely misused word, at least in the US. It specifically refers to attraction to prepubescent children. It does not apply when the person has reached puberty. So, as much as I dislike much of what ‘x’ said, ‘x’ is not a pedophile. A creep? Probably, but not a pedophile.

Also, as you point out, 13 year olds (often) are biologically adult. In many times and places it would be routine for a man to court and marry a woman of 13 years. For instance, my own grandfather – who married my grandmother when she was 13. So for all of you out there who are saying or implying that only a creep would find a 13 year old woman attractive – please stop calling my grandfather a creep. Thank you.

I used to think a lot about it with my friends, just like Larissa, when I played Crono Trigger and Crono Cross…..I got used to think about those Quantum Mechanics things for about a month or two…I don’t think that used to make any sense now -_-“….

Ugh, the many-worlds interpretation. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with it per se, the same way there’s nothing wrong with interpreting probabilities in all things in terms of “worlds,” but the problem is that, unfalsifiable as it is by its very nature as an interpretation, too many people cling to it, even a hyper-literal sense of it, dogmatically, in a transparent attempt to shut down God of the gaps arguments and other quantum woo weak in any interpretation, defaming science as they talk about “collapse fairies” – ironically, unwittingly lending implicit support to the most absurd unspoken premise of the Kalam cosmological argument – as they replace one kind of nonsense with slightly better nonsense, worse in its ways by its illusory rigor and already drawing its own woo (which basically doesn’t read too differently from Larisa’s drivel up there).

Good try, Larissa, but in the macro world in which we live in, the ball is out. Besides, read All The Myriad Ways to find out the insanity of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I refuse to believe that every time anybody anywhere makes a decision there are worlds in which they didn’t; for instance right now I have supposedly created worlds in which I wrote “I refuse to consider” instead of ‘believe;” “all times” instead of ‘every time.” Besides, I’m annoyed at the thought that every time I play the lottery, some other me wins; I’m tired of my turn coming up ‘any time now’ but never “right now!”

In its simplest form, Heisenberg states that “the act of OBSERVING reality CHANGES reality.” HUP apples at a macro level just as it does on a quantum level, which is why “Reality Television” is little more than pointless bogon emissions, probably devised to make up the gap between “six hundred channels, all day every day” and the limited number of effective writers and good ideas to be found in the Writer’s Guild…

Hell, I have YET to see a reality show that was worth watching for more than about fifteen seconds…

Although I must admit, I do like the “Heineken Uncertainty Principle” – even though I don’t care for beer (too weak.)

You know what? At some point, scientists and mathematicians can’t be thought of as particularly intelligent, because everything that they write is so garbled and unintelligible that they have to hire translators for them. No, seriously- at the local aeronautics plant, a very smart man came to give a presentation. He spoke for 45 minutes and nobody understood a single thing he said. Then his assistant took the microphone, and spoke for 5 minutes, and they all got it.

The moral of the story is: There’s more to the world than math and physics. Thank God.

@ teezoen:
You’ve not read an Asimov textbook then. Yes, the Asimov that wrote about robots was a real scientist, and also wrote fascinating chemistry books for children.
Here in Britain we have a tradition going back to Michael Faraday of real, leading edge scientists giving well attended public lectures on their specialisms – for children even!
So it’s not all scientists who write unintelligibly.

@ teezoen: There’s not more to the world than math and physics. Math and physics have given rise to a broken ape brain, and some of those brains, more broken than others, are bereft of understanding of math and physics, and must abstract them away. But the flaw is in those particular brains made of math and physics, not the math and physics themselves.